I have to say that I was impressed to read that an Islamist Jihadist shows at least a little more integrity than the BBC insofar as alleged Glasgow Airport car-bomber Bilal Abdulla has at least admitted that he is a terrorist. (Mind you, he is a terrorist who claims, laughably, that he did not want to kill or injure anyone, so kinda missing the point of terrorism) You won’t find the BBC using the T-word unless through the most gritted teeth or else when describing the actions of the US or UK military.
ISLAM MORE HONEST THAN BBC?
Bookmark the permalink.
Any chance of a link to an instance of the bbc refering to uk or us military action as terrorist?
makemineliberal,
Sorry, My error, meant to add..and Israeli army. If you have to ask, you are beyond help.
Dear David,
Again, you are misquoting and misrepresenting.
But who cares, it seems you can write whatever you wish, and your flock will respond in the usual fashion. It really does not matter what you say, as long as you start a new item, so that the same old things can be repeated, regardless of facts or truth.
Just a matter of time for Martin to pop along to let fly. Ever so sweet.
Well, I think this could be called a cult or a religion, with you being the One …
Any chance of a link to an instance of the bbc refering to uk or us or israeli military action as terrorist?
Talking about religion.. comparing the deceptions of Islam with the deceptions of the BBC. Difficult.
There’s this on Islam:
“Raymond Ibrahim: Islam’s Doctrines of Deception”
http://209.85.135.104/custom?q=cache:BOEJl3gbRFYJ:www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023454.php+Islam+doctrines+of+deception&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=google-coop-np
Much of the political output of the BBC reflects its unargued political one-eyed jack ‘multiculturalist’ bias; the BBC extends that ideology into coverage of issues Islamic, in which it mimics Al Jazeera, at UK licencepayers’ expense.
The BBC seems in the past few years to have been forced to use the T word in relation to actions in the UK. Especially after the incident when they deleted the T word after the London tube and bus bombings – and were forced to reinstate it.
But it still usually avoids the T word in relation to terrorist atrocities overseas. Like Bali, in in Iraq or Afghanistan, in India or Pakistan, in Russia – and of course in Israel etc.
This suggests a double standard ? A terrorist action against Brits is labelled terrorism – but terrorism against people in other countries is usually labelled as militancy or insurgency. Does this imply that terrorism victims overseas are somehow lesser mortals ? How does this chime with the BBC’s multiculturalism ?
And what about the convolutions when a terrorist attack overseas involves Brits – for instance bombings in Egyptian beach resorts – or in Bali ? Do British tourists caught up in such overseas bombings not deserve the same use of language as victims here at home ?
“Any chance of a link to an instance of the bbc refering to uk or us military action as terrorist?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7693583.stm
Sorry, but in this case, the BBC used “terror” in more than one report.
Glasgow Airport attack man dies
Because it was a domestic attack, and the BBC knows that even the sheeple will think it’s terrorism because white people were in danger, they’ll use the term. Otherwise, Beeboids are on record from the top down – including a couple of them who have commented here – as saying that the “T” word is too emotional, and they’d rather not use it when more “accurate” terms are available. Those terms seem to include “mass murder”, but never mind.
The only reason they used the “T” word concerning the Glasgow attacks is because it happened in the UK, and the BBC had no choice. Elsewhere, they’re “militants”, etc.
David:
“If you have to ask, you are beyond help.”
Please note how much more persuasive and successful a response it is when someone like KtB actually comes up with an example.
In comparison, a neutral might think you had been unable to think of one, and were covering your tracks with this unconvincing evasion.
Mikewhineliberal: I for one would love to see the BBC accuse Israel of terrorism: it would be a slight improvement on the standard BBC discussion of Israeli war crimes.
Apparently the employees at Al Jazeera are furious that some jobs could be lost following the transfer of personnel to Broadcasting House…..
@KtB: Your link was an example of the BBC describing the syrians describing the US as terrorists. This is not the same as the BBC describing the US or UK as terrorists.
@henryflower: Please note how much more persuasive and successful a response it is when the responder does not resort to name calling.
GotThePox:
@KtB: Your link was an example of the BBC describing the syrians describing the US as terrorists. This is not the same as the BBC describing the US or UK as terrorists.
Oh, the BBC use the word ‘terrorist’ against the US, Bush and Israel by getting the likes of Galloway, Benn, Bari Atwan and various Muslim spokesmen – the usual anti-war (when it’s the West fighting back) crowd – onto the airwaves all the time.
Just look at the panels on the political programmes – they are hardly ever balanced – even their careful selection of American commentators is heavily in favour of the left.
They cover anti-war demos in great detail and make sure we see the banners, Bush is Hitler, Cheney is a war monger etc etc.
We do NOT see happy Iraqis rebuilding their country – along with Americans and others – trying and succeeding in making things better.
So the memes, ‘Bush is a terrorist’, ‘the US is just as bad as the Taliban’, ‘Israel is a bully’ etc etc is broadcast nearly every day by stealth, if you like.
Lying by omission is one of the standard operational procedures for Islamic propagandist and it’s a habit they seem to pass on by some process of osmosis to the various correspondents and NGO workers deal with them. We were treated to a sample on Radio Five Breakfast this morning with a lengthy attack on Israel’s blockade of Gaza causing humanitarian hardship for ordinary Palestinians.
Egypt happens to share a border with Gaza which it too has closed. Any BBC reporter who is absent minded enough to mention this fact will usually add that the Egyptians do so at the request of Israel – as if the Egyptians would be happy to have a population immersed in a culture of death by suicide bombing to come and go across its borders.
ktb – nope. try again.
The repulsive BBC may have used the word ‘terrorist’ thru gritted teeth one or two times re-the London tube atrocities and the Glasgow attempts, but you can be sure their favorite term is the non-judgmental “bombers” (unless it’s John Simpson, in which case it’s “misguided criminals”)
i also had a bit of a shock when i heard Beeboid news readers use the T word, and we aint talking milk a 2 sugars either
I do believe they are getting restless at Aunty, and the appeal of Cornish Yurts for next year’s hols is wearing off.
Hence be prepared for a lot of ‘specials’ from Down Under, and who cares if only a few can afford it and the carbon emissions go off the scale.
At least this is all I can imagine from the several minute commercial carried out on BBC Breakfast ‘News’ this morning, based on a press release from the Australian Tourist board based on a movie release.
I guess we should be grateful for the cost savings, but I do wonder if air fares and accommodation are covered by the parties benefiting from sending the Uk population off on long haul hols.
David Vance is quite wrong to say the BBC never uses the T -word.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-398808/Uproar-BBC-satire-featuring-Westminster-9-11-attack.html
In 2006, BBC2 broadcast a comedy show called Time Trumpet with one sketch of an Oscar-style ‘Terrorism Awards’ ceremony.
“To add authenticity to the clips – which appeared on the internet yesterday in what appeared to be a cynical attempt to drum up publicity – ‘The Terrorism Awards’ are hosted by BBC election veteran Peter Snow and Tomorrow’s World presenter Philippa Forrester.
Introducing the nominees, Mr Snow says: ‘Terrorism can be a lonely business, and a long hard struggle. Our three finalists in this category are …’
”
Not so much the BBC losing their moral compass as stamping on it underfoot.
GtP: are you suggesting I have resorted to name-calling? Please show me where.
Omega Man: are you seriously, I mean seriously, suggesting that a comedian who has built a career out of mocking the way the media operates has ‘lost his moral compass’ because he imagines the BBC holding an awards show for acts of terrorism? Surely, if anything, such a joke is something we at this site should be able to laugh at and identify with? It’s a joke about media ambivalence to terrorist atrocities, and not in itself a statement of approval. D’uh!
What next? Chris Morris is pro-paedophile because he satirized media panic?
This nonsense about the “terrorism awards” has been a constant meme on another right-of-centre site, the author of which repeatedly mentioned it without even having the honesty to inform his readers that the show was a satirical comedy. Get a grip!
Iannucci is perhaps the only BBC comedian who has openly ridiculed and satirized the islamist protestors outside the Danish Embassy – showing them holding idiotic messages such as “slaughter the laughers” – and “death to everything after the 8th century” – as well as one expressing hatred of Jews.
Iannucci may be left-of-centre, may even support New Labour for all I know, but to claim – on the basis of a joke at the expense of the media – that he has lost his moral compass is so far wide of the mark as to be risible.
Omega Man: perhaps you might also try to convince us that David Vance actually thinks Ahmedinejad should host Children in Need. I mean, he’s joked about the possibility at least twice, so it must be that he thinks it’s a good idea, right?
“Satire”. You can find it in any good dictionary, Omega Man.
Henryflower
I personally only think satire is effective when you know the position of who is delivering it. Otherwise it becomes ambiguous and fails.
Of course, if it’s to your taste, feel free to enjoy the joke. To me, BBC topical humaour is as funny as burning orphanage.
Kill the Beeb | 17.11.08 – 11:24 pm | #
Ah right, so ‘scare quotes’ are disregarded and irrelevent when used to show a view articulated by someone nasty, yet simultaneously viewed as articulating BBC cynicism when used to express the views of someone B-BBC agrees with.
I think the BBC would like to refer to terrorists as
‘Our glorious lads, out there in the field, risking life and limb to fight he evil Jew and his subordonate, the fat, stupid Ameirica, so we can all live in a peace and harmony in the new dictatorship of the prolotariat, in world socialism – with our Islamist brothers..
Perhap’s that’s too long, and that’s why they’ve just shortened it to ‘Militant’.
Ah right, so ‘scare quotes’ are disregarded and irrelevent when used to show a view articulated by someone nasty, yet simultaneously viewed as articulating BBC cynicism when used to express the views of someone B-BBC agrees with.
Ah wrong, what is demanded is consistency. The BBC has a nasty habit of inconsistency in using scare quotes which just happens to demonstrate bias. Quite accidental I am sure.
“I personally only think satire is effective when you know the position of who is delivering it. Otherwise it becomes ambiguous and fails.
Of course, if it’s to your taste, feel free to enjoy the joke. To me, BBC topical humaour is as funny as burning orphanage.”
The Omega Man | 18.11.08 – 10:45 am
So let me get this straight, Omega Man: you can’t quite work out where Iannucci stands when he mockingly shows the BBC celebrating terrorism, and mockingly shows islamist protestors displaying their anti-semitism, their hatred, and their backwardness?
You think maybe Iannucci would love to see London attacked by terrorists again? If so, say it.
That would be more honourable than hiding behind the nonsense idea that you need to check the satirist’s voting record before knowing whether to laugh or not.
I ask you again: do you truly think it morally objectionable that a satirist satirized the BBC’s attitude to terrorism by showing the BBC giving terrorists awards, in much the same way that David Vance imagines seeing Ahmadinejad hosting Children In Need?
I too find 90% of the BBC’s comedy output to be nothing more than left wing bile dressed up as humour, and swallowed by guffawing morons who are programmed to laugh approximately three seconds after hearing the sounds “Bush” or “War on terror”.
Iannucci is better than that, and even if you don’t think he is, which is your prerogative, I still maintain you’ve willfully misrepresented the terror awards satire.
The point about the BBC’s attitude to the word “terrorism” is absolutely valid, but using the Iannucci sketch to illustrate what the BBC “really thinks” about terrorism makes our case look silly.
I think the BBC reached the absolute pits on its sick policy against using the T word when its reporters refused to use it to describe the Beslan school atrocities. And then kept trying to blame the Russians.
BBC Terror Guidelines
We must report acts of terror quickly, accurately, fully and responsibly. Our credibility is undermined by the careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgements. The word “terrorist” itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term, without attribution. We should let other people characterise while we report the facts as we know them.
We should not adopt other people’s language as our own. It is also usually inappropriate to use words like “liberate”, “court martial” or “execute” in the absence of a clear judicial process. We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as “bomber”, “attacker”, “gunman”, “kidnapper”, “insurgent, and “militant”. Our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom.
If I was a BBC journo I would understand the Guidelines to mean: Don’t use the word terrorist unless reporting someone else’s use of the word. The famous “There is no dialogue with those murderous terrorists,” Mr Abbas said, referring to Hamas militants, now makes perfect sense.
BTW I didn’t find any examples, other than quoting someone else, of the BBC describing the actions of the US or UK or Israeli military (or any other military) as terrorism.
Gunnar
“so the same old things can be repeated ”
Well the BBC does keep repeating the same bias over and over again, but it does sometimes show new biases.
Henryflower – There are some jokes that off limits. I can think of some quite recent ones I learnt about on Radio 2. As I said, it’s a matter of taste. Maybe other people caught up in 9/11 or the London bombings are more able to laugh at these things.
Anonymous: It is in itself a value judgement to remain “non judgmental” in the face of atrocities like Beslen. To refrain from using a loaded word like terrorist to describe a “bomber” or “militant”. In this way, the BBC conveys legitimacy to the most despicable murderers from all around the globe.
So if I were a BBC journo, I would understand the guidelines to mean: “give the perpetrators of acts like Beslen the benefit of the doubt, and don’t use any bad words to describe them”.
Surely, whoever was responsible for Beslan, is a terrorist ? The point is that the BBC will soft-peddle on any implication that the Russian security services may be responsible for any atrocities.
Not much reporting from the BBC on Chechnya these days. Guess they are caught between a rock and a hard place. Love of mother Russia and love of Islam is not an easy mix for their small minds.
Omega: we disagree on that. There is no subject that cannot be explored using satire and humour. Humour is a serious business.
To say that certain subjects are off limits, and should never be joked about, is a disturbingly islamist way of thinking – as Iannucci recognised: “slaughter the laughers”
Anonymous in practice you will find experienced BBC journalists like Peter Taylor or John Ware are perfectly comfortable calling terrorists terrorists. Watch the Age of Terror and you will see what I mean.
It would be nice if David could come up with one example of the BBC calling the US terrorists except when quoting known extremists.
But never letting facts get in the way of a good rant does make for an entertaining blog. Even if it makes it harder for the people like Hugh who put some effort into it.
mikewhineliberal:
Richardlancaster:
Please die, the both of you.
You’re a pair of hysterical BBC apologists and I’m not defending Vance’s posting just to please either of you.
Al Beeb typically uses ‘other peoples’ opinions to express their own – as in the news item I posted. The fact that both of you believe this is acceptable reporting proves what a pair of insufferable wet pratts you are.
Sarah Jane
You are missing the point. Try reading the earlier posts.
In its REPORTING – on air and at its website – the BBC never describes terrorists as terrorists – except where they operate inside the UK.
Anything overseas is not terrorism, in the BBC view. Bali, Beslan, women bombers blowing up markets in Iraq, attacks in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, anywhere – they are all NOT terrorism.
That is – acts of terrorism simply do not exist anywhere in the world except Britain.
THAT is how stupid the BBC has become. Worse than stupid – condoning of evil.
Sick beyond belief.
ktb – nice.
So terrorist like Ayers, which endorsed the left-wing illuminati, admit their wrong doings, and the media ignores it.